PURPOSE: To assess the optimal b-values range for perfusion-insensitive apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) imaging of abdominal organs using short-duration DW-MRI acquisitions with currently available ADC estimation methods. METHODS: DW-MRI data of 15 subjects were acquired with eight b-values in the range of 5-800 s∕mm(2). The reference-standard, a perfusion insensitive, ADC value (ADC(IVIM)), was computed using an intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model with all acquired diffusion-weighted images. Simulated DW-MRI data was generated using an IVIM model with b-values in the range of 0-1200 s∕mm(2). Monoexponential ADC estimates were calculated using: (1) Two-point estimator (ADC(2)); (2) least squares three-point (ADC(3)) estimator and; (3) Rician noise model estimator (ADC(R)). The authors found the optimal b-values for perfusion-insensitive ADC calculations by minimizing the relative root mean square error (RRMS) between the ADC(IVIM) and the monoexponential ADC values for each estimation method and organ. RESULTS: Low b-value = 300 s∕mm(2) and high b-value = 1200 s∕mm(2) minimized the RRMS between the estimated ADC and the reference-standard ADC(IVIM) to less than 5% using the ADC(3) estimator. By considering only the in vivo DW-MRI data, the combination of low b-value = 270 s∕mm(2) and high b-value of 800 s∕mm(2) minimized the RRMS between the estimated ADC and the reference-standard ADC(IVIM) to <7% using the ADC(3) estimator. For all estimators, the RRMS between the estimated ADC and the reference standard ADC correlated strongly with the perfusion-fraction parameter of the IVIM model (r = [0.78-0.83], p ≤ 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The perfusion compartment in DW-MRI signal decay correlates strongly with the RRMS in ADC estimates from short-duration DW-MRI. The impact of the perfusion compartment on ADC estimations depends, however, on the choice of b-values and estimation method utilized. Likewise, perfusion-related errors can be reduced to <7% by carefully selecting the b-values used for ADC calculations and method of estimation.
PURPOSE: To assess the optimal b-values range for perfusion-insensitive apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) imaging of abdominal organs using short-duration DW-MRI acquisitions with currently available ADC estimation methods. METHODS: DW-MRI data of 15 subjects were acquired with eight b-values in the range of 5-800 s∕mm(2). The reference-standard, a perfusion insensitive, ADC value (ADC(IVIM)), was computed using an intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model with all acquired diffusion-weighted images. Simulated DW-MRI data was generated using an IVIM model with b-values in the range of 0-1200 s∕mm(2). Monoexponential ADC estimates were calculated using: (1) Two-point estimator (ADC(2)); (2) least squares three-point (ADC(3)) estimator and; (3) Rician noise model estimator (ADC(R)). The authors found the optimal b-values for perfusion-insensitive ADC calculations by minimizing the relative root mean square error (RRMS) between the ADC(IVIM) and the monoexponential ADC values for each estimation method and organ. RESULTS: Low b-value = 300 s∕mm(2) and high b-value = 1200 s∕mm(2) minimized the RRMS between the estimated ADC and the reference-standard ADC(IVIM) to less than 5% using the ADC(3) estimator. By considering only the in vivo DW-MRI data, the combination of low b-value = 270 s∕mm(2) and high b-value of 800 s∕mm(2) minimized the RRMS between the estimated ADC and the reference-standard ADC(IVIM) to <7% using the ADC(3) estimator. For all estimators, the RRMS between the estimated ADC and the reference standard ADC correlated strongly with the perfusion-fraction parameter of the IVIM model (r = [0.78-0.83], p ≤ 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The perfusion compartment in DW-MRI signal decay correlates strongly with the RRMS in ADC estimates from short-duration DW-MRI. The impact of the perfusion compartment on ADC estimations depends, however, on the choice of b-values and estimation method utilized. Likewise, perfusion-related errors can be reduced to <7% by carefully selecting the b-values used for ADC calculations and method of estimation.
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Rafael Alonso Clarke; Paola Scifo; Giovanna Rizzo; Flavio Dell'Acqua; Giuseppe Scotti; Ferruccio Fazio Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Robert M Hicks; Judy Yee; Michael A Ohliger; Stefanie Weinstein; Jeffrey Kao; Nabia S Ikram; Thomas A Hope Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Donnie Cameron; Mustapha Bouhrara; David A Reiter; Kenneth W Fishbein; Seongjin Choi; Christopher M Bergeron; Luigi Ferrucci; Richard G Spencer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kishor Karki; Geoffrey D Hugo; John C Ford; Kathryn M Olsen; Siddharth Saraiya; Robert Groves; Elisabeth Weiss Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Casey Vieni; Benjamin Ades-Aron; Bettina Conti; Eric E Sigmund; Peter Riviello; Timothy M Shepherd; Yvonne W Lui; Dmitry S Novikov; Els Fieremans Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Sila Kurugol; Moti Freiman; Onur Afacan; Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Michael J Callahan; Simon K Warfield Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Jeff L Zhang; Steven Baete; Riccardo Lattanzi; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Sungheon Kim; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 4.668